[PDF] Concept Selection - Applying Pugh Matrices in the Subsea

View - Download Concept Selection - Applying Pugh Matrices in the Subsea

Previous PDF

Next PDF

-$SSO\LQJ3XJK0DWULFHVLQWKH6XEVHD

3URFHVVLQJ'RPDLQ

Linda Lønmo

FMC Technologies &

Buskerud University College

linda.lonmo@fmcti.com

Gerrit Muller

Buskerud University College

Gerrit.muller@hibu.no

Copyright © 2014 by Linda Lønmo.

Abstract. This paper discusses the application of Pugh matrices in concept selections within the subsea

processing department of FMC Technologies. The focus is not the concepts themselves or requirements

management, but on applying Pugh matrices in conceptual system studies. Previous research by Master students

in the oil & gas industry shows resistance amongst engineers and managers towards using Pugh matrices.

The application of the Pugh matrix in these studies showed that if applied on the correct level of detail as part

of the concept selection process, it is a powerful tool. It forces reasoning to be based on explicit criteria and also

serves the purpose of documenting the decision making. This level of documentation and definition/selection of

criteria goes beyond the normal practice today. The study teams gained a broader and deeper understanding of

the design problems in addition to securing the quality of the concept selection process. The involved engineers

readily adopted the Pugh matrix and they intend to continue using it, mainly due to its ability to force structural

thinking in complex systems.

Introduction

FMC Technologies is the world's leading provider of subsea solutions for the oil & gas industry. FMC

Technologies is a global company with approximately 16,800 employees and operates 30 production facilities

in 16 countries. FMC's subsea history dates back to 1967 when FMC Technologies sold and delivered its first

subsea tree for use in 20 meters water depth in the Gulf of Mexico. The core business of FMC is still subsea

production systems comprising subsea trees and manifolds connected by piping connectors and operated via

control systems. Subsea processing is different from traditional production because it involves active treatment

of hydrocarbons; separating, cooling and pumping fluids, whilst gas is compressed. While subsea production

systems are considered mature technology, subsea processing is still relatively young. Subsea processing

systems are solutions to enhance field economics by maximizing recovery, increasing production, and reducing

operating costs.

The Tordis Subsea Separation Boosting and Injection (SSBI) system operated by Statoil (Figure 1) was the

world's first commercial subsea processing system and delivered by FMC (installed 2007). Subsea separation

along with other upgrades to the field infrastructure is expected to increase the recovery factor for the field from

49 to 55% (approximately 35 million barrels). Tordis is recognized by the industry as one of the most important

technology milestones for subsea in recent years. Pazflor operated by

Total is another of FMC's milestone

projects as the first subsea processing system in West Africa offshore Angola. FMC's processing department in Asker executed the

Tordis and Pazflor projects. Other

than these EPC projects this department works mainly with concept screening studies - Tordis was on the drawing board 10 years before EPC contract award.

Pugh matrices can improve the

quality of the concept selection process and facilitate a structured

concept selection process. The entry level of the Pugh matrix is relatively low and no specific software is

Figure 1: Tordis Subsea System

required. This paper describes the application and validation of the Pugh matrix for three system studies

performed in the subsea process systems department.

Problem Statement

The goal of the study phase is objective and structured evaluations between alternative system solutions. Short

durations, limited budgets, and lack of resources often characterize this phase. These constraints often make

engineers rush into the first feasible solution, bypassing systems engineering techniques and processes, in order

to finish the work within the allotted time and budget. In addition, customer involvement is often limited during

execution of the study making alignment of expectations difficult. Engineers often select concepts based on

their experiences and preferences instead of objective and structured evaluations between the alternative

solutions. Previous master students have concluded that it is hard to convince experienced (older) engineers to

value Concept Selection and evaluation matrices [5,6,7,8].

Concept selections are often in the form of informal meetings with drawings/models as the only documentation.

Team members seldom prepare decision logs or minutes of meeting. Many concepts have a number of

interrelated parameters, and the human mind struggles to handle the complexity. Concept selections without a

proper methodology have a high risk of being inconsistent and unjustified. There is a high risk that the concept

chosen is not the best one, and may require redesign later. Redesign in later project phases is expensive and

inefficient. Team members seldom prepare decision logs or minutes of meeting. When design decisions are

revisited in subsequent phases of the project, or by engineers in similar projects, it is hard to find the reasoning

behind the choices. The subsea process systems department needs an improved concept selection process.

Overview of the Pugh Matrix

Stuart Pugh introduced an evaluation matrix in 1991. This section is based on his book Total Design -

Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering [0]. This matrix is also known as the Pugh matrix. Pugh

claimed that matrices in general are the best way of structuring and representing an evaluation, as they add

structure and control to the concept selection process. The Pugh matrix facilitates evaluation of alternative

solutions against significant criteria. The purpose is to identify the concept that best satisfy the criteria.

The Pugh Matrix is not intended to be a

mathematical matrix; it is simply a format for expressing ideas and the criteria for the evaluation of these ideas in a visible, user- friendly fashion. The method utilizes one leg of the matrix to express the criteria on the vertical axis. The horizontal axis is used for visualizing the alternative concepts (Figure 2). + (plus): meaning better than, - (minus): meaning worse than, and S meaning same as a defined reference

concept. Each criterion is scored for all the cases at the same time. Once the matrix has been fully populated a

summary at the bottom shows the individual concept's ability to match the requirements as well as the strengths

and weaknesses in the concepts. Pugh highlights that it is impossible to evolve and evaluate all possible

solutions to a particular problem, and in order to minimize the possibility of the wrong choice of concept, it

becomes essential to carry out concept formulation and evaluation in a disciplined approach. The method is

iterative and the matrix is reviewed in cycles until the preferred concept is confirmed and approved by the team

members. Pugh claims that key outputs of concept selections by using the evaluation matrix are: a greater insight into the requirements a greater understanding of the design problem a greater understanding of the potential solutions

an understanding of the interaction between the proposed solutions, which can give rise to additional

solutions a knowledge of the reasons why one concept is stronger or weaker than another a natural stimulus to produce other concepts.

The method of using the Pugh matrix also makes it difficult for people to push their own ideas for irrational

Criteria Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4

A + - + -

B + S + S

C - + - -

D - + + -

E + - + -

F - - S +

Ȉ 3 2 4 1

Ȉ- 3 3 1 4

Ȉ 0 1 1 1

Figure 2: Standard Pugh Matrix

reasons or to deliberately attempt to eliminate the bad features of some less acceptable concepts.

Research Methodology

Several methods were combined in this research (Error! Reference source not found.). Focus was on

interaction with members of the different project teams performing the studies and applying the Pugh matrix.

The research was performed mainly amongst young engineers, only 2 of the 13 engineers that participated in

the survey, were over 40 years.

Action research/industry-as-laboratory.

FMC process system studies are multi-

disciplinary; research of such subjects is complicated by nature as Muller and

Heemels discuss in [2]. The "action

research/industry-as-laboratory approach" uses the actual industrial setting as a test environment [2, 3].

What separates action research from

general professional practices, consulting, or daily problem-solving is the emphasis on scientific study. As part of this paper, the researcher studied the concept selections and investigated the Pugh matrix methodology. Much of time was spent on refining the Pugh matrix to suit the situation, and on collecting, analyzing, and presenting data on an ongoing, cyclical basis [2,3,4]. Three cycles involving planning, acting, observing and reflecting were performed as part of the research for this paper. Each cycle involved a separate, subsequent system study performed in the subsea process systems department (

Figure 4: Action Research Cycle

DIAGNOSING

Benchmarking and

learning

ACTION

PLANNING

layouts and meeting strategies

TAKING ACTION

selecting matrix and meeting strategy

EVALUATING

How well did it

work? Identify improvements

SPECIFYING

LEARNING

Prepare matrix and

approach

Figure 3: Research Methodology Overview

Figure 4).

The researcher informed the study participants of the benefits of the Pugh matrix. This was followed by

identification of possible matrix layouts, from which one was implemented. Data on the results of the

application of the Pugh matrix was collected and evaluated. The findings were interpreted in light of how

successful the concept selection and Pugh matrix were. At this point, the matrix was reassessed and the process

begun another cycle [3]. The focus of this paper is not the concepts themselves but on the application of Pugh

matrices.

Baseline. The researcher performed door to door conversations to gain information from colleagues in addition

to own experience. This also served the purpose of pre-survey prior to the interviews and questionnaire (Error!

Reference source not found.). The conversations targeted how concept selections are made today and captured

how customer involvement and expectations were normally met.

Interviews. In addition to the baseline conversations, informal interviews were conducted prior to using the

Pugh matrix and building the questionnaire. A second series of interviews was performed after concept

selection for each study prior to or in parallel with the questionnaire.

Questionnaire. The engineers provided feedback by filling in a questionnaire. The questionnaire had in total 19

questions and took approximately 15 minutes to complete. 12 out of 13 people responded. The questionnaire

was formulated after the initial interviews and baselining. It partly overlapped the action research and was

distributed to participants immediately after the concept screening.

Observing. The researcher observed the project team during internal concept screening and in meetings with

the customer. The researcher noted down meeting progress, atmosphere, type of dialogue, if the meeting stayed

on topic, and degree of involvement. The researcher appointed another observer as well.

Subsea Processing System Studies

DIAGNOSING

Benchmarking and

learning

ACTION

PLANNING

layouts and meeting strategies

TAKING ACTION

selecting matrix and meeting strategy

EVALUATING

How well did it

work? Identify improvements

SPECIFYING

LEARNING

Prepare matrix and

approach

The research presented in this paper is based on three system studies performed by the subsea process systems

department in Asker. These studies are performed on assignments from the oil companies. The subsea domain

is project oriented and the work is characterized by time and cost constraints. The customer outlines a study,

and the scope of work is agreed prior to the FMC study team executing the study (Figure 5). When defining the

scope of work and the deliverables, the interaction with the customer is typically from the chief engineer, sales manager, and line managers.

At this point, the FMC study team

has not been assigned yet. The customers often have their project team involved at this stage.

Initiating the study work, the FMC

study team arranges internal and external kick-offs and agrees withquotesdbs_dbs9.pdfusesText_15

[PDF] concept selection process

[PDF] concept selection report

[PDF] concept selection table

[PDF] concept selection: a method that works

[PDF] concepts in programming languages

[PDF] concert djadja dinaz paris 9 novembre

[PDF] concierge key american airlines number

[PDF] concise oxford dictionary of english etymology pdf

[PDF] concise oxford english arabic dictionary pdf

[PDF] concise oxford english dictionary 11th edition free download pdf

[PDF] concise oxford english dictionary 12th edition pdf

[PDF] concise oxford english dictionary pdf

[PDF] concise oxford english dictionary pdf download

[PDF] concise rules of apa style

[PDF] concise rules of apa style 6th edition